Anderton, Bradford and Sharples let off lightly

Not PC has pointed out that the mainstream media continues to be on the Winston Peters feeding frenzy:

"while Helen Clark campaigns on "trust" that she's already demonstrated she's lost ,and John Key promises to "change" New Zealand when he's already promised not to make any change that will in any way make a difference -- while all this happens, New Zealand's media is still fiddling around with Winston Peters, his dancing monkey, and the question of which dog ate whose homework, and in which motel Brian Henry might have been when it all happened".

Meanwhile, the paid "professionals" known as journalists have completely let it slip by that the leader of one party supporting Labour, a co-leader of a party that may support either Labour or National, and the MP of another party have all publicly backed a group of Cuban spies convicted of conspiracy to murder.

Yes, Jim Anderton, Pita Sharples and Sue Bradford have declared their credentials to be blood red. They repeat the nonsense that Cuban dissidents are "terrorists" and that these Cuban spies were fighting terrorism when they dobbed Cuban refugees into the Cuban police state. THAT should be a small scandal, it SHOULD be getting scrutiny that a senior Cabinet Minister has aligned himself to a police state.

However, for the cherubs who are reporters in the mainstream media, that is too complicated - you see they would have to explain how Cuba is a police state, how Cuban dissidents help Cubans flee and spread propaganda to encourage Cubans to rise up against their dictators, and then explain the judicial process faced by the Cuban Five.

Not as interesting as Winston though is it? Three MPs (and by implication three political parties) are sympathisers to those aligned with a communist dictatorship and nobody gives a damn.

Imagine voting for National

To do that I'd have to accept either this:
- Centralised bureaucratically funded and directed education, with central bargaining for teachers and no performance pay, with no funding following students, and no tax refund fior buying your kids' education is ok;
- Centralised bureaucratically funded and directed health care, with central bargaining for nurses and doctors, and no performance pay, with a virtual lottery on getting surgery and no accountability for poor performance and no refund for providing for your own healthcare, is ok;
- Property rights remain under the control of local government with the RMA, except that central government can fasttrack its projects whether they be by energy SOEs, transport agencies or local government;
- All the current bureaucracies should remain and not face any real cuts in funding or roles;
- Government spending should still grow, just less than 9% per annum;
- Local government should retain its current wide ranging powers to use ratepayers money for any purpose it deems as promoting the economic, social, environmental and cultural wellbeing of "communities";
- The government should hold onto unprofitable and poorly performing SOEs and not seek private capital;
- Some minor tightening of the welfare state is all that is needed, but state housing stock should continue to grow, and people should still be able to have state houses with income related rents AND accommodation supplements;
- The Maori seats are not to be questioned, nor are laws that grant any ethnic or racial group different rights from others;
- The ETS and the Kyoto Treaty commitments are not to be questioned, but ETS should be tweaked;
- The top tax rate should remain higher than most major trading partners (outside the EU).

OR National has a secret agenda, which ala Ruth Richardson in 1990, will bring tears to my eyes and make me smile.

I want Labour out of power. I wont be voting for Labour. Voting for a party that will not grant Labour confidence and supply is not supporting Labour being in power.

However to vote National is a positive endorsement of either a wholesale capitulation to almost all Labour policies since 1999 or wishful thinking that it is a lying deceitful bunch of confidence tricksters who will play a one trick game of liberalising the New Zealand economy, education, health and welfare systems. I say a one trick game because it will revive the political fortunes of Winston Peters in one foul swoop if that IS true.

If I had voted National in 1996, I would have had to swallow the deal with NZ First, the deal with Alamein Kopu, Tuariki Delamere and the rest of them, the continued abomination of the RMA, the lack of any constructive change in education, health or welfare. However EVEN then, National still privatised, still was seeking to restrict local government's role and deregulated postal services, abolished tariffs on imported motor vehicles. National said it would do these things. Now? Nothing.

What is it I am voting FOR if I choose National? All I can see is that it gets rid of Clark, and Co. A fine goal indeed, but on day two I get to be governed pretty much to the same extent to the same degree in similar ways by people who apparently don't have the courage of their convictions in doing it. Labour believes it is good to govern the country, National believes it has to, almost grudgingly.

Maybe that's it?

Vote Labour if you want big government and to be governed by people who believe they should be governing you.

Vote National if you want big government and to be governed by people who believe they have to be governing you.

So who do you vote for when you don't want to be governed, but want government to protect you?

Leftwing economic illiteracy and hypocrisy

Well The Standard obviously thinks tolls are a bad idea, having posted on this several times, even though:

- Labour introduced and passed legislation to allow toll roads to be introduced by Order in Council under recommendation by the Minister of Transport. The ALPURT B2 Orewa motorway bypass will be the first. Tauranga Harbourlink would've been the second if Winston hadn't made removing the toll a condition of his confidence and supply agreement. Penlink in Rodney District may be the next one;

- Transit New Zealand under Labour undertook a study following the passage of that legislation to investigation what other new highways could be part funded through tolls. It concluded that several Auckland projects (Waterview connection being one), parts of the Waikato expressway, an expressway in the Bay of Plenty and a handful of other projects could be tolled.

- The Labour led government commissioned a study into introducing road pricing in Auckland to reduce congestion and raise revenue called the Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study (ARPES). It considered a daily charge which was $6 a day, so that means $30 a week for a commuter.

And the Standard got this hatred for tolls from a Green blog - when commonsense says that charging vehicles for road use is bound to be better for the environment that subsidising roads from general taxes.

but apparently the Standard opposes Labour policy. How odd.

Black Power's treaty claim

Yes, seriously according to Stuff. You see it claims that gangs exist because of colonisation. Remember when the UK invaded NZ during the lifetime of those gang members, and they had to club together to fight the oppression of the imperialist invaders who took their property, denied them education and stopped them expressing their culture?

"It's the story of our lives really and the way we're treated. From our perspective there have been multiple Treaty breaches, every article has been broken. The way we've dealt with the different breaches is to get together with other like-minded people" says spokesman Eugene Ryder.

Yes, poor you, hasn't "society" dished you a raw deal? Shouldn't everyone be forced to bail you out of your lives? Hardly surprising that Marxist Maori nationalist lawyer Moana Jackson is talking favourably about the claim.

This is the consequence of a culture, and government that supports a culture that individuals are not responsible for their lives and not responsible for improving their own lot. A culture that doesn't blame individuals, whether themselves or their families, but blames "structural" issues, blames the whole collective of society - so it can then claim that everyone be forced to pay to make their lives better.

A simple answer is to disband the Waitangi Tribunal, and redirect the sort of claims that have gone to it before to being a matter of property rights claims when the state has historically stolen from citizens (Maori and others). So which political party will advocate that then? It doesn't begin with the letter "N".

United Future's tinge of less government

Now I'm not getting excited, but check out these policies on the United Future website:

"support the continuation of the 'no-fault' regime and mandatory workplace accident insurance, but support competition in the provision of accident compensation services” This is ACT policy. Open up all of ACC to competition.

“retain the Ministry of Economic Development, but re-focus key elements of their work away from 'picking winners' and towards removing impediments to business especially exporting” Mild, but a small step forward.

“cut taxes to 10% up to $12,000, 20% between $12,001 and $38,000, 30% above $38,000” bigger tax cuts than National, including getting rid of the 39% top rate.

“UnitedFuture will promote "no regrets" policies to address climate change – i.e. measures that will provide both environmental and economic benefits.” Not too shabby, but it also supports ETS.

“Task the Local Government Commission with a review of the size and shape of all local government areas in order to reduce local government activity to a pre-1995 level” Again more adventurous than National.

“Hold an early referendum on the future of the Maori seats in Parliament, as UnitedFuture believes that no ethnicity should have special privilege above others in our proportional electoral system.” Whereas the Nats would do a deal with the Maori Party.

"Introduce tax concessions to recognise the savings created by those who choose to take out private health insurance, or pay for private treatment, prioritising those aged over 65. Investigate the feasibility of a national health insurance scheme for non-trauma based disability, in particular elective surgery for the elderly.” Steps beyond what National would suggest.

However, remember this only looks interesting because National policy is so bland, and before you think about giving Dunne a tick remember, not only has he kept Labour in power over TWO terms, set up a new bureaucracy called the Families Commission, but also has some weirder policies.

“Introduce a Multicultural Act, similar to Canada, for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in New Zealand.” Whatever that means.

Steps backward like “convert Transpower NZ Ltd to a public utility with the sole objective of transporting power through the National Grid at the lowest possible long-term cost to the consumer” instead of being able to be profit oriented and invest in the infrastructure.

More tax funding to “Establish overseas aid at 0.5% of GNI immediately and reach the accepted international millennium goal of 0.7% by 2015.”

and far too much on a wide range of policies, with endless interventions in a wide range of areas.

Peter Dunne has dabbled with ex. National MPs, with the Christian right, with hunters and fishermen, and is now dabbling with a little less government and tax. I don't doubt he actually has a more libertarian set of policies in many ways than National - but sadly that says more about National than it does about Dunne. It's a sad day when a vote for Peter Dunne looks like a more radical option for change than a vote for National, but you can't really be sure that he wont support Labour.

You see he's been supporting Labour every single day since the last two elections.

SPCA spies on child abuse?

Oswald Bastable blogs on a scheme whereby the SPCA will report on "signs of child abuse" when inspecting or taking animals from homes, and Child Youth and Family will report signs of animal abuse and neglect while working on families.

Note this isn't about calling the Police and laying a complaint, but reporting to each other - in other words the SPCA, full of well intentioned animal lovers, will be judging whether there are signs of child abuse.

Obviously child abuse is a serious issue, and there are plenty of Police and teachers who see cases whereby children are being neglected, and there needs to be a judgement about intervention. However the SPCA? It isn't a state agency.

Obviously if anyone witnesses child abuse or finds children who have clearly been subject to physical or sexual abuse (hospitals encounter this not infrequently), there is reason to call the Police if there is no reasonable answer from the parents. The biggest flaw with the family unit is when the parents abuse their position of power and act as sadists at worst, or just ignore their kids - the state must be in a position to intervene beyond a certain threshold. However getting non-state bodies to spy, when they have no professional ability to make this call is disturbing.

Australians have a new Opposition leader

Whilst the US and NZ election campaigns are under full swing, one could be excused for neglecting what has happened across the Tasman.

Brendan Nelson has been replaced as Liberal Party leader by Malcolm Turnbull - a multimillionaire former merchant banker according to the Sydney Morning Herald (so Michael Cullen will look down upon him).

The Daily Telegraph (UK) says he is a staunch republican, which obviously raises clear issues about the long term future of Australia as a Constitutional Monarchy, as Turnbull is the first Liberal leader to be so explicitly in favour of Australian becoming a republic. He chaired the Australian Republican Movement from 1993 to 2000. Turnbull is a Roman Catholic, but quite liberal on matters such as stem cell research and the abortion pill RU486.

The Liberal Party might start looking a bit more liberal, compared to how it was under John Howard.

Greens are right!

Yes, Frogblog has made a post I basically can't disagree with.

"Giving your party vote to a specific party increases that party’s proportion of seats in parliament and thereby diminishes every other party’s proportion. Vote for what you believe in. It’s that simple.

In the end we should stop trying to play the FPP game where the big parties pretend each of the small parties is actually just a faction of them. Assess each party on its policies and past history and vote accordingly. If you’re looking for a moderate centre-left party with a dash of ‘cling to power at all costs’ realism, vote Labour. If you’re looking for a ‘don’t worry there’s no secret agenda, we’ll keep things the same but say we’re offering fresh change’ party vote National. Otherwise look around. If you get Act or New Zealand First in government and didn’t want them, blame the people who voted for them, not the people who voted for something different."

Now it IS likely that if Labour got into power it would be because some people voted NZ First and Labour did a deal with NZ First. That's a reason to blame Labour for wanting to do such a deal, and of course the retards who vote NZ First for creating the opportunity.

I'd extend it further. Voting for any party does not put another party in power. No party "owns" your vote or is entitled to it. It is as that old leftie Ralph Nader said in response to Democrats who thought he "stole" the 2000 Presidential election from Al Gore and gave it to George W Bush - He essentially said 'you don't own my vote, you're not entitled to it. I choose who I vote for, it doesn't mean I endorse any other and doesn't mean I "took" it from you. It wasn't yours".

Just because I am highly likely to vote Libertarianz doesn't mean I've stolen my vote from ACT, let alone National. It's my vote, and if other parties haven't attracted it, then that it their problem.

Buyer's market

Go on, when stocks plummet along with property prices, there is opportunity. Want to buy a home? Want to buy some shares in major utilities? There are winners and losers when there is a major economic upheaval, don't ignore the opportunities to be a winner. The simple reason is that it may as well be you - because there are plenty just waiting to bargain hunt.

Oral sex speculation

What do you do when you want to make up a story - find a paper at a Sexual Health Congress (obvious joke for the more well read in that phrase) about oral sex.

However, it has never been "the exclusive domain of sex workers".

Most survey results are rather what people are willing to say rather than what happens, and moreso who knows what happened in the past?

It has never been illegal in New Zealand between women and between women and men. It is naturally a matter of personal choice and taste, very intimate, with one less obvious danger for women.

Thankfully politics can stay well out of it, but it is remarkable how it has become de riguer culturally. I can only hope that it is indulged in out of desire and passion rather than a sense of "I'm expected to do this".

Cullen plays hypocrite

Now I'm not warm towards John Key politically, but he is a smart guy, and he has had a real job. One thing that can't be said of him is that he is a failure - he doesn't need to be in politics, which naturally makes one wonder why he is, but that is besides the point.

According to the NZ Herald, Dr Cullen has claimed that Key is a "gambling currency trader" and that's the last sort of person that New Zealanders should want running the economy. Hilarious really, when Dr Cullen gambled taxpayers' money (money they didn't choose for him to gamble with) in many ways, such as:
- Buying the Auckland rail network for $81 million when Treasury valued it at $20 million tops, and before the whole network was bought back for $1;
- Buying the whole rail network for $1 after promising an Australian owned company monopoly rights to run across it, and to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade it, and then not enforcing the price it agreed with the company for it to pay to use the network;
- Buying Toll Rail well above the price that any commercial operator would have paid to buy it;
- Buying Air NZ after letting it nearly go into liquidation, instead of allowing Singapore Airlines to provide a 25% capital injection.

John Key in his previous career made business decisions for people who chose him to make judgements about their money. I'd trust John Key on macro-economic decisions anyday beyond the history lecturer, who has NEVER been trusted to manage the money of thousands of people before, and certainly never been accountable for failing to do so wisely.

Who would you rather have as your banker? John Key or Michael Cullen? To conclude, if currency trading is seen as "gambling" (which is an exercise that by and large is about taking a chance on blind odds in most cases), then what is using money taken from other people to buy businesses and assets at many times the price they were valued add commercially?

Cullen struggles to justify rail purchase

Dr Cullen, according to a government press release (not election campaigning of course!), says that the purchase of Toll Rail was essential because "With rising fuel prices and growing awareness of the threat of climate change, the restoration of New Zealand’s rail system is now an economic necessity".

Yet rail customers weren't willing to buy it, which makes it rather a curious claim. Economic necessity? Hardly.

Furthermore, he bizarrely thinks that because Toll said the railway business was worth a lot of money, it must have been!:

“Toll believed, however, it was worth over $1 billion. As the government had to take national interest factors into account and as the existing owners of the track itself, we were always going to have to pay more than commercial rail operators who did not have an interest in keeping services open. In the end roughly half of the price the Crown paid was to buy Toll out of its long term monopoly right."

Well I can say my car is worth $100,000, but it doesn't mean it is - it means if you believe it, I'm ripping you off. If Toll believed that, why didn't it sell Toll Rail to someone who would pay it? Why sell to the government? It was a bluff, a standard commercial negotiating technique, which Dr Cullen is either too stupid to see, or was being willfully blind because he wanted to buy it, at any price (and could threaten to force a sale).

He admits he was willing to pay more than a commercial operator because he wants to keep services open that effectively can only be kept open at a loss.

The waffle ends with:

"Having KiwiRail in Kiwi hands will allow us to protect rail services for provincial economies, move more freight off roads and onto tracks, and help make our economy a truly sustainable one"

Protect them? So provincial economics need rail to move logs, milk, coal and containers, at a loss? So the loss of revenue from less road user charges will be saved in maintenance costs? Was the economy truly sustainable when it was illegal to ship freight more than 150km by road?

KiwiRail is going to be a huge success for our economy. Really? So after paying over a billion dollars to buy it back and upgrade the lines and trains, will it return dividends that will pay that back and some? No, of course not. It's smoke and mirrors, it is faith not facts, it is worshipping the same altar of religion of rail that the Greens bow down at.

It's bad economics and complete nonsense. Toll took Dr Cullen, the Labour/NZ First/United Future/Jim Anderton government to the cleaners, and flogged off an unprofitable business for a fortune. Now Dr Cullen is spouting out rubbish about the gains this "investment" will bring.

My challenge is simple to the government- produce an independent economic appraisal of the net economic return from the renationalisation of Toll Rail. I dare you.

Malaysia on the brink of a quiet revolution

Malaysia has been dominated by one party for all of its years since independence. UMNO has led a coalition of Malays, Chinese and Indians to govern Malaysia somewhat autocratically since 1958. Now, Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, formerly Deputy Prime Minister, who had been convicted on trumped up charges of sodomy 10 years ago (and facing new charges), believes he has the numbers in parliament to bring down the government according to the Daily Telegraph.

Mr Anwar claims 30 government MPs are ready to cross the floor, but fears that the government will crack down on opposition. It already sent 50 MPs on a trip to Taiwan to reduce the risk of MPs defecting!

If it happens, it will challenge the explicitly racist nature of the Malay led government. Malays have long dominated the government, instituting quotas for jobs and higher education to try to advance their position economically, compared to the far more successful Chinese. Malaysia's ethnic tensions may re-emerge, but what is most important is to have a peaceful handover of power in Malaysia from UNMO. Malaysia needs this to be a modern liberal democracy and so the state can be accountable, and be purged of corruption. It has had many years of successful economic growth, and I wish Malaysia well (having visited twice). Its people will be best served if they are to be free.

Clintonistas not flocking to join Obamaniacs

According to the Daily Telegraph, Hilary Clinton's pleadings for her supporters to back Obama isn't getting the reaction that was hoped for. Given the bitter campaign between the two Democrat candidates, distrust is high towards Obam. 28% of Clinton supporters in Ohio have said they will vote for McCain. Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Clinton did particularly well, could well go to McCain as a result.

I can't but help think that Clinton wouldn't mind Obama losing - as she could quietly say "told you so" and have a shot in 2012.

The latest poll of polls on CNN puts both Obama and McCain on 45% - it is a brave person who would call this election by any means.

Mickey Mouse - Satan's soldier

So says Sheikh Muhammad Munajid, a Muslim cleric, former Saudi Arabian diplomat, who according to the Daily Telegraph says under Sharia both household mice and cartoon mice should be killed. The cartoon ones, you see, teach children than mice are lovable. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, tsk tsk.

He said in an Arab language TV broadcast:

"Even creatures that are repulsive by nature, by logic, and according to Islamic law have become wonderful and are loved by children. Even mice.

"Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases."

Ahhh Islam can be such fun. Though I love the quote about what he said about the Beijing Olympics:

"Last month Mr Munajid condemned the Beijing Olympics as the "bikini Olympics", claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits."

Well, given that Mr Munajid is such a fun fellow, you can be sure that anything that most in the world considers fun is immoral to him - but when did he last rally against female circumcision?

Zimbabwe deal deja vu?

There is considerable hope that the deal between Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangarai's MDC will result in real change in Zimbabwe, although to be honest that hope is only because the alternative is so bleak.

The power sharing deal means day to day power is meant to be transferred to Tsvangarai as Prime Minister leading a council of Ministers, whilst Mugabe remains President and chairs another Cabinet. In short, Mugabe loses little, and gains some scapegoats and the chance that aid may once again flow to his beleagured land of subjects. Zimbabwe, with a life expectancy of 32 years, and inflation that averages at over 4% every single day, meaning prices double every 2.5 weeks, is on its knees - and the man that did it, and the men and women who stole from Zimbabwe will remain immune.

As Ayn Rand once said the only winner when good and evil compromise, is evil. It is clear that the murdering, thieving, destroying thugs of Zanu-PF will get away with their kleptocratic homicidal deeds. It is clear that Robert Gabriel Mugabe will continue to be President, continue to fly in a private jet and be feted by lesser (and occasionally greater) thugs and murderers around the world. In short, there will be no justice for the people of Zimbabwe, when the appropriate response would be to put him and his cronies on trial, Ceausescu style and put them in front of a firing squad.

However, Morgan Tsvangarai is tired of hoping for that outcome. Thabo Mbeki, another accessory to murder and theft, has long insisted on a compromise that would suit his fellow gangster mate Mugabe. Only a handful of African leaders spoke up against the festering sore of that regime, and so Tsvangarai felt stuck, without arms, without a means of overthrowing the kleptocracy that murdered and tortured his supporters, he sought peace.

Peace has a price.

Joshua Nkomo of ZAPU, a tribal based party aligned with the Ndebele minority saw how Mugabe could operate. As recalled by the Times, Nkomo was an opposition leader who also fought for Zimbabwe's independence. After some violence and rivalry, Mugabe gave Nkomo a cabinet seat before accusing him of plotting to overthrow the government. Following that accusation, Mugabe ordered his murderous Fifth Brigade (trained by North Koreans) to unleash a genocidal campaign on Matabeleland that saw 20,000 Ndebele murdered. Nkomo relented and announced the merger of ZAPU and ZANU, creating ZANU-PF - destroying Zimbabwe's opposition. He did it for peace, and died a broken man:

"The parallels with today are uncanny,” Heidi Holland, author of a recent book, Dinner with Mugabe, about the tyrant’s political rise to power, told The Times. "

Peace, you see, isn't a virtue when it is under slavery. One would hope Tsvangarai knows this lesson from history and is seeking to not repeat it, but one also knows Mugabe is cunning and slippery.

I notice the NZ government is welcoming the deal with caution, but saying many issues need to be addressed. I'd prefer to say that the sooner Mugabe and his cohorts were deposed from power and subject to trial for their crimes against Zimbabweans the better.

The heartbreak that is Zimbabwe is far from over, there is no reason to cheer just yet.

UPDATE: The Times writes about what is needed to make a real change in Zimbabwe. Repeal of the draconian security laws. End of the blockade on humanitarian aid being delivered directly to those in need. End of the intimidation of opposition supporters. Drastic action on inflation. Restoring to productivity the formerly white-Zimbabwean owned farms that have been pillaged and ruined. Constitutional reform to hold truly free and fair elections. Without that, this deal is window dressing.

Anderton and the Greens support Cuba too

Yes, hot on the heels of Dr. Pita Sharples supporting the Cuba Five - a set of spies convicted of conspiracy to murder, who infiltrated an anti-Castro organisation and told the Cuban government of plans of Cuban to flee the prison state of their country. This resulted in the Cuban government shooting down light planes containing Cubans fleeing to the USA.

Jim Anderton and Sue Bradford support these men. They put their names to a press release claiming "The Cuban Five were engaged in a peaceful mission to stop Miami-based organisations from continuing to carry out terrorist attacks against Cuba".

Terrorist attacks against a one-party state that imprisons political opponents, suppresses independent media and which at one time sought to become a nuclear weapons base to threaten the USA?

So the Progressive Party (which is Jim anyway), and the Greens appear to prefer the Cuban dictatorship's view of the Cuban Five over the US government. At best they could be ambivalent and not know who to believe, but this attitude shows a conviction that the Cuban government is morally equivalent to the USA, and even New Zealand.

That is fundamentally naive and quite evil.

What's choice?

Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato Angeline Greensill (and former Mana Maori Party candidate) says "It’s choice to be young and Maori".

Actually Angeline, you can't choose your age, or your genetic history.

Choice is about freedom, it's about being able to choose your own destiny for your body and your property. It's not about initiating force, and it's not about preferring one race over another.

Engaging young Maori people in politics is fine, until you are advocating more government and initiating more force against others - and the Maori Party is.

Showing off in Kapiti

Yep Kapiti Coast District Council looks set to allow nudity on the beach from Paekakariki to Otaki.

Of course it will stir up hysteria from the "liberal" left, thinking kiddies will all be flashed at, and saying it is offensive to the one-brained collective called "women", and the religious will also be upset, as individuals who find the human body an object of shame.

It will be an interesting experiment. Maybe it will all mean little difference at all, maybe those who do act in a threatening manner will be dealt with by the Police. Maybe it will be a little like parts of continental Europe where bare breasts bums and other bits are unimportant.

or maybe the bogun trash in Kapiti will ruin it, along with the handful of pervs who live there.

As the Hive says, should make for interesting times.

UPDATE: Family First NZ is slamming the move, wanting to criminalise nudity on the beaches. Now it is fair enough to want to not look at naked bodies, but I don't want to see men's fat bellies, I don't want to see combovers, I don't want to smell people with BO. I find that all offensive, I find men's penises just funny looking, and women naked are either not worth looking at or rather nice. Again, interesting to notice its priority with the naked body rather than violence.

Liberal Democrats want LESS government

Yes, just as the UK Labour Party looks like it is ready to go further to the left, the third party in UK politics, the Liberal Democrats, is swinging to the right.

At the weekend conference of the Liberal Democrats, leader Nick Clegg called for substantial tax cuts, and a shrinking in the size of the state. He says there should be a £20 billion cut in annual public spending. That's much more than the Tories could dream of suggesting. It is still only 3% of spending.

Yes the same Liberal Democrats that last election called for a new top tax rate of 50% with a 1% increase in the middle tax rate. He is facing a fight, as the Lib Dems have been infected for years by socialists who liked it leftwing alternative to New Labour, and its opposition to military action abroad. He wants to dramatically cut tax credits, subsidies and programmes that are wasteful, like ID cards.

Now this isn't libertarian at all, he wants to cut the lower rates of tax not the top rate, he doesn't want to privatise or get the state out of health and education, but it IS a vision of less state and of abandoning government programmes that fail. For a party that was all about more taxes and more state spending three years ago, this is an encouraging step forward.

The Daily Telegraph is cheering him on with its Saturday editorial:

"We wish him the best of luck. Not only is there the possibility of a hung Parliament but it is also high time that Labour and the Conservatives felt the heat of a third party boldly proposing what most people in this country want: smaller, simpler, better government."

Labour doesn't believe in this, the Conservatives are too scared to believe in it again, could it be that the Liberal Democrats are, for once, the party of less government in the UK?

Maori Party allies itself with Cuban communists!

No, this isn't Trevor Loudon investigating the past of some Maori Party MPs.

It's a press release from Pita Sharples.

Dr Sharples, who I thought of as being a man of some moderation, has said this of 9/11:

"The United States is the world leader in the so-called War on Terror. But in Cuba, for example, 9/11 is the day the people remember the Cuban Five. Those five men have been imprisoned in the United States for ten years for trying to stop terrorist attacks on their homeland that are launched from the United States"

Hold on "the people"? How does HE know this? Cuba bans all independent journalism, it strictly controls all information and a monopoly on the media. So who ARE the Cuban Five, and what did they do?

Well they are Cuban government agents, who infiltrated Cuban exile groups in the USA, as well as engaged in espionage against US military facilities. One informed the Cuban government of an operation whereby Cubans fleed on small planes, that ended up being shot down by Cuban fighter jets. They were convicted of espionage, conspiracy to commit murder and using false identification papers. These convictions were overturned on appeal, resulting in a new trial, which upheld them again, and were again upheld on subsequent appeal.

The men infiltrated this group, which the Cuban communist one party state claims is a terrorist organisation, which Pita Sharples agrees with. In fact the group assists Cubans trying to leave the country, it drops propaganda leaflets and encourages dissent in Cuba.

You see Dr Sharples - Cuba is a dictatorship, a one-party state.

Dr Sharples supports the Cuban view of the world though:

"I am delighted to support the establishment of a NZ committee for the release of the five Cuban patriots announced yesterday" said Dr Sharples. "They can certainly include my name on their list"

“The alleged crime of the Cuban Five was to try to infiltrate the expatriate groups of anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, who had been organising and carrying out terrorist raids against Cuba for many years, while the US ignored the protests of the Cuban government."

Excuse me? Terrorist raids? Says who? Oh yes the Cuban communist regime, which regards any protest march, any independent newspaper, any action by its citizens to defend themselves against the police state to be a "terrorist raid".

So - the Maori Party swallows Cuban propaganda - the Cuban Five case is at best controversial, but to treat Cuba as morally equivalent to the USA, and New Zealand, is despicable.

Then Dr Sharples adds insult to the NZ military saying this:

"when our New Zealand SAS troops confronted their enemy in Afghanistan, it was not clear to me who was maintaining homeland security, and who was fighting terrorism"

So is he really saying that the Taleban were just "maintaining homeland security"?

Is the Maori Party really the Marxist Party I once suspected it to be?
Does the Maori Party really think the Taleban are just the Afghanistan Tangata-Whenua?

Kedgley repeats her bullshit scaremongering

Yes it is this story all over again. Sue "ban it, force it" Kedgley is bleating on about telecommunications equipment being unsafe without any shred of evidence, just her nasty politics of scaring the uneducated.

"Under the new standard, telecommunications companies will be able to clutter power poles in residential areas and even next to schools and childcare centres with new cellular and wireless equipment, including satellite dishes, even if these could significantly affect their health or amenity values."

Yep, spot the scaremongering words "clutter" (because untidiness is important), "even next to schools and childcare centres" (because the equipment might hurt children - in her anti-science world of fear). Then "even if these could significantly affect their health", which they wont.

This harpie of fear uses her cellphone regularly, she makes nonsensical comments like "including satellite dishes" ignorant that almost all satellite dishes radiate less energy than a car aerial.

There is a simple rule of thumb about Sue Kedgley and science - she knows nothing about it. She is one of the worst kinds of politicians there is, one that practices hyperbole of fear, that sidesteps evidence and calls for the use of force to solve almost every problem she finds.

She's enough reason to avoid the Green Party like the plague.

Possibly guilty till proven innocent

Allegations of abuse of children by adults whose job involves interactions with children are serious - few would question this. They give good reason to investigate, and if there is sufficient evidence, take disciplinary action in terms of employment at the very least, and if necessary lay a complaint with the Police.

However, the flipside of child abuse is the damage caused to those accused of child abuse. Accusations are often difficult to conclusively disprove and paint a dark aura around a person, "perhaps he did it", "wonder if there are others", people don't trust their children around the accused. The abuse of an adult of the physical, emotional and intellectual power over a child makes most people shiver.

So the basic maxim of the English Common Law criminal burden of proof is that you are innocent till proven guilty. It being better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent be condemned. Sadly this fundamental principle is now being somewhat eroded in the UK.

You see, Ian Huntley, the murderer of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, had been a suspect in several sex offences. In one case he had been charged, but there had been insufficient evidence for a conviction. So he retained his job as a school caretaker. He had been, until his conviction of the killing of those two girls, innocent till proven guilty. Information about these allegations had not been retained.

So now according to the Daily Telegraph (no link), local authorities need to set up databases to contain ALL allegations of child abuse of those working with children, until either the person retires or the individual proves innocence. Suspicious till proven innocent.

The claims can be made anonymously, but there need not be a charge, let alone conviction.

Furthermore, the cases will all have to be investigated by local authority officers - yes that bastion of competence, and must find a claim is either "substantiated", "unsubstantiated", "unfounded" or "malicious". The latter two can only be found if there is evidence disproving the allegation. So the odds are that many cases will reside in the "unsubstantiated" category - neither guilty, nor innocent.

Of course this hardly helps the innocent. The innocent have a file suggesting there is an unsubstantiated claim, which naturally puts that innocent person at a disadvantage compared to one without a claim. Nice that. So you are definitely not presumed innocent.

So who wants to make a false allegation? Think of the incentives. That estranged wife or girlfriend, or the disgruntled student, can make an allegation knowing it will make the accused's life hell, and never be accountable for it - never having to appear in court to be cross examined.

Instead local government investigates allegations and unless you can prove your innocence, they remain on a file, able to be searched by employers, for the rest of your life. It appears that the UK public policy response to a horrendous crime is to erode the rights of the innocent - because after all, the safest country is the one under constant surveillance.

So it continues, until the next person not on any database murders some kids, and another way of monitoring the innocent will be found - and none of the political parties gives a damn.

Branson runs to the government again

Self styled entrepreneurial gadabout, Sir Richard Branson, is running to nanny state wanting to seek protection for part of his multi million pound business empire. This time it is Virgin Atlantic Airways he wants to protect.

You see, British Airways, American Airlines and Spanish carrier Iberia are seeking anti-trust immunity in order to co-ordinate and operate as one across the Atlantic and within Europe and the USA. This would enable them to co-ordinate, schedules, fares and routes. The absurdity that frequent flyers belonging to BA and American (both members of the OneWorld alliance) can't earn frequent flyer points on the other airlines services across the Atlantic would be removed.

The three carriers (along with Finnair and a couple of other small OneWorld alliance carriers in the northern) want to integrate so that BA can sell a ticket including a domestic connection using AA in the US, and AA can do the same with a BA connection.

The Atlantic is one of the most competitive air corridors in the world, with 42 airlines flying between the EU and the USA, and it being an open market on international routes for airlines from either market. AA/BA and Iberia have 21% of the market share at the moment, although between the UK and the US it is around 44%, and London-New York 52%.

Other airline alliances already have this anti-trust immunity. Star Alliance, which Trans Atlantic means United, Lufthansa, US Airways, BMI, SAS, TAP, Austrian and Swiss, has 35% of the traffic Trans Atlantic. Skyteam, comprising Air France/KLM and Delta/Northwest, has 28% of the market.

However, Branson cries foul. He claims it will create a "monopoly" which of course it wont. He's making it up, playing his favourite role of the hard done by little guy, who only wants what's best for himself consumers. You see Virgin Atlantic isn't in any of the alliances. It does do codesharing and co-ordinates closely with BMI and Continental Airlines. However, out of the nine airlines flying between Heathrow and the US, Virgin Atlantic has the second largest operation.

He complains that it would put 51% of landing slots at Heathrow in the hands of one conglomeration. Hardly a monopoly, especially since Skyteam holds 73% of the slots at Paris Charles de Gaulle and 85% at Amsterdam Schiphol, while Star Alliance carriers hold 80% of Frankfurt. All BA, AA and Iberia want is the same as its competitors - Branson is moaning because his airline is independent and he doesn't like competing. You see, unlike BA, Virgin has no flights within Europe - so no wonder BA is bigger, Virgin doesn't even operate in competition with it on many of its routes.

However, the best response to Branson is the one I saw from Willie Walsh -BA's CEO - in the Daily Telegraph on Friday.

"He knows a good deal about monopolies. With help from taxpayers, he has run a real one on fast trains between London and Manchester since 1997. And now he is talking about establishing another one by taking over Gatwick airport."

Yes, Virgin Trains has a monopoly on passenger rail services between London and Manchester, it has done this with millions of pounds of subsidies - that's real entrepreneurship isn't it? Branson says he wants to buy Gatwick airport, from which BA and AA both operate very few Trans Atlantic services.

So go on "beardie", compete. You did well earlier this year when BA's troubles at Terminal 5 coincided with the opening of a major upgrade to your part of Terminal 3 at Heathrow. You could tie up closer with BMI. In other words, you could compete your way to success, not moan to the government.

For all that, I'm giving your airline another shot in a couple of months time - Heathrow to New York. I hope it's better than last time!

Two elections

So 8 November is the day, 4 days after the US Presidential election. If it weren't for work I'd contemplate flying over and absorbing the debates for both elections. As it stands I'll be sticking it out in the UK, where I can access plenty of US coverage, but NZ will all be online.

As a result, I'll be blogging more heavily. This will be the first NZ election I'll be blogging and it will be remote, so pardon me for what I miss. To do this, I'll be listening to Mourning Report via the net in the evenings (the Revo Blik is the coolest radio, combining DAB and internet radio).

8 November will be a chance to look at the record of the current government, noting that it exists because of four parties, not just Labour, and decide what direction you want it to go. If you're pretty happy with the role of the government growing, happy with how the state spends your money (or happy with how much of other people's money you get), you'll probably vote Labour. If you are reasonably happy but have a particular thing for Transmission Gully or a bureaucracy for families, you might tick United Future. Those of you who are fans of Jim Anderton or Winston Peters, for unfathomable reasons, might tick their parties.

Have no bones about it - a vote for Labour, NZ First, United Future or the Jim Anderton/Progressive Party is a vote for no change.

If you think there should be more tax, more government, more regulation, more money taken from taxpayers and given to others, if you are suspicious of science, economics and those who advance reason, but think those on welfare will improve their lot if only they got more money for doing nothing (and you can't be arsed giving more of your own). If you think that trees, birds and fish are more important, inherently, than human lives, and if you believe that government can only be a force for good if it gets bigger, stronger and more intrusive, you'll vote Green. You'd be better voting Alliance though :)

If you think that Western civilisation and British colonialism has been bad for New Zealand, and the future lies in a Maori dominated government, that splits the country into two groups - Maori and everyone else, and dishes out rights and taxes on that basis, you'll vote for the Maori Party.

If you don't particularly like Helen Clark, Michael Cullen or the rest of the Labour Cabinet, and want to see some new faces, but pretty much the same policies - you'll vote National.

If you think the reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s were the best thing that happened to NZ since the UK promised to buy all NZ's exports, and that the country badly needs more, you'll vote ACT.

If you think that Christianity should drive government, and those who don't believe should just follow the rules and get out of the way, you'll vote for the Family Party or the Kiwi Party.

If you believe that there should unabashedly be less government, lower taxes and that adults should always interact on a voluntary basis, you'll vote Libertarianz.

Meanwhile, the US Presidential election will be profoundly important. Both men are not strikingly compelling, one is to the left of the Democratic Party (and hiding that oh so well), another is to the liberal end of the Republican Party (and indeed doing the same). Both have fired up their base in different ways. Obama is the dream of the Democrats, McCain had to bring Sarah Palin in to fire up his base.

Now both face the challenge of the fight for the remaining 20%. Those voters who are convinced by neither, who are suspicious of more government, but also are not religious conservatives. They are the swing voters - the ones that need to be convinced as to who they are more confident about being elected to the White House. I remain moderately convinced that McCain is best for the world, New Zealand and the USA, but it is more because he offers a chance for some positive change on the domestic front - and Obama's change is about more government.

Greens seek to nationalise children

Sue Bradford launched the Green Party policy on children - because you need a policy on everything (where is the dance policy?).

It represents the explicit desire to collectivise responsibility (if not rewards) for the raising, care, protection and development of children by everyone of everyone else's kids. This isn't the village to raise a child, it is the nation state.

This policy statement says so much that, on the face of it seems innocuous, but the use of the word "we" means "you should be forced to pay for this and feel guilty if you don't agree":

They are our future, so we must give them the best possible start to life.

Each child should have the opportunity to grow with joy, be fully supported by their family and be an integral part of our society. Each child deserves a secure base from which they can express their creativity and discover life as an adventure.

Who is this we? Why must you give other people's children the best possible start in life? Who is responsible? Not the parents no - this is Sue Bradford nationalising the responsibility of children to everyone, through the warm embrace of the state.

Why should every child be "an integral part of our society"? What the hell does that mean? When are you NOT? What is "our society"? I don't want any kids I have to have anything to do with this work shy, union worshipping, state welfare supporting socialist!

Now the policy has 130 points! Yes 130 - this is nanny state par excellence. So what do these measures really mean? Well...

- dozens are about essentially removing barriers to get compulsorily funded state welfare, as the Greens embrace welfare benefits as a way of helping kids.
- Some are about making people work less, a 35 hour week and more leave, essentially saying that the magic Green money tree will find a way to produce more by doing less. It doesn't occur to this control freaks that cutting the size of the state would enable more people to CHOOSE to spend more time with their children. No. Nanny State must tell you to work less.
- there is talk about promoting a non-violent culture, whilst at the same time embracing the violent nanny state that takes money from its citizens, prosecutes fines and imprisons those who break its laws. The Greens positively love violence, as long as it is velvet fist of the Nanny state they embrace.
- It wants kids to watch more TV! The Greens want to make you pay to produce TV programmes for children to watch, locally made of course (can't have those culturally inappropriate foreign shows can we now? Not with "our" children). Why have any subsidies for kids TV? Encourage them to go outside!!
- It wants to make you pay for "culturally appropriate care and treatment" for Maori, Pacific Island and other ethnic children, which isn't as important as making sure they are healthy. Looking forward to witch doctors being funded then, though one may wonder if it could ever be culturally appropriate for children of parents who want world class cutting edge science applied to healthcare.
- The obsession with GE continues, banning NZ production of GE food, on the implicit assumption it is unsafe for children - which is hysterical nonsense.
- Regulations on labelling of takeaway food, because its voters are too damned stupid to know that deep fried chicken is high in fat!
- Support diversity and choices in education, EXCEPT when it means funding following students. No mention of religious schools of course, just Steiner, correspondence, home schooling and Kura - the ones the Greens like.
- "Incorporate environmental education into the core curriculum at all levels from pre-school to secondary school" code for brainwashing Green ideology. I'd argue education in economics, education in freedom and individual rights, but if that happened kids wouldn't grow up appreciating the multi-leader Green party Nanny State.
- "increasing access for all children, including children in rural areas, to art, music and drama" Yes the state subsidised and nationalised childrens' plays, bands and art exhibitions. Yes lovely, Nanny helps you play.

It goes on and on. It is a disturbing vision of state subsidies, bureaucracies and rules, but most disconcertingly a philosophy that parents are not primarily responsible for their children, and that parents don't get punished for failing to be responsible. Nobody is to blame! Negligent, lazy, alcoholic, criminal parents all need "help and assistance" - forcibly funded by you, whilst you try to pay to responsibly raise your kids.

There are odd statements like "Recognise that in the context of Pacific families, definitions of children and youth are made by parents and families as opposed to an age specific status" oh so does that mean that when a girl is 13 she's an adult and can have children then by some distant relative twice her age?

Naturally the Greens use the phrase "adequately resource" often, which means give the bureaucracy a blank cheque to make it happy - they love the Office of the Childrens' Commissioner, which has done virtually nothing to improve the lives of any children- except those of the people working there.

Children do not belong to the state, nation, society or everyone. Children are nobody's property, but they are the responsibility of their parents and guardians first and foremost. The role of the state regarding children should be as a last resort to intervene in cases of abuse and profound neglect - not to mollycoddle and provide for everything that might be nice for kids to have, funded by force through taxes.

The Green vision of a childrens' policy is the Greens wanting to expand the state to do virtually everything other than physically feed, clothe and bathe the kids (even then they want to control food). It is statist, childish and downright terrifying. It offers no vision to save those kids from the subculture of violent, abusive, negligent lowlife who brutalise them - it wants to pay them more.

It's absurd, immoral and bankrupt.

Why 9/11 matters

It wasn't a natural disaster, it wasn't an accident.

It was an act of war by Islamists from Saudi Arabia, backed by the tyrannical regime in Afghanistan against the USA, Western civilisation and secular free liberal society.

The battle is far from over, but the success has been to prevent a repeat attack in the US - although it has happened in the UK and Spain, more by inspiration than by direct control.

Islamists are stone age thugs using 21st century tools, they are one of many direct threats to the advancement of humanity, and the lives of those who wish to live peacefully and not initiate force against others. They must be fought both philosophically through the battle of ideas, and directly where and when they threaten freedom and lives.

That is why keeping Afghanistan and Iraq out of Islamist control is so important - the best examples to the Muslim world are secular states that allow pluralism and are at least partly free. Sadly, Turkey and Bosnia are the best there is, whilst most others are either oppressive or unable/unwilling to deal with their own murderous Islamists.

9/11 was not just an attack on the USA, it was an attack on the idea of the USA - a secular liberal free society where people can live their lives as they choose, without being forced to bow to any religion or political beliefs. To appreciate that you need to accept that secular liberal society is superior to theocratic autocracies of all kinds - to do that tolerance of individuals practicing Islam peacefully has to be separated from those using Islam as the foundation to wage, threaten and plan for civil war.

I do not care if individuals are Muslims and treat religion as a basis for how they live - until that extends to taking away my individual freedoms and attacking me. I don't like Islam, but there is a clear line between:
- Hating Islam as a philosophical and belief system;
- Fighting Islamist inspired attacks and threats; and
- Defending the right of someone to worship the Muslim faith whilst not posing a threat to anyone else.

Few disagree with the second point, few argue the first and not enough who argue the first also defend the third.

Labour's latest cutting edge policy - dance!

A Dance Industry Strategy?

Yes Judith Tizard - proving her utter worthlessness as a sucker of the state tit has announced:

Associate Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Judith Tizard launched the Dance Industry Strategy, in association with DANZ (Dance Aotearoa New Zealand), in Parliament's Grand Hall tonight.... "I commend DANZ for taking on the challenge of finding out where the dance sector sees itself, where it wants to go, and how it wants to go forward.

"The Labour-led government promotes cultural expression through writing, dance, theatre, music and the visual arts."

These activities are supported through funding from Creative New Zealand, who fund many of DANZ’s activities, as well as many festivals around New Zealand, and direct funding to national institutions like the Royal New Zealand Ballet and Te Matatini.

So there you go - education, healthcare, law and order, the economy, everything is running tickety boo -so now there must be a dance strategy.

Will there be a strategy for tapestry? A strategy for photography? A strategy for campanology?

Come on National - scrap having a Dance Strategy. There need not be a government strategy for everything, there will be one for masturbation one day at this rate!

Trotter's admiration for threats of violence

Chris Trotter's blog talks of "working class justice":

"the story I was told by a rank-and-filer whose workplace was visited by two burly union organisers. He recalled especially their East-End accents, and the lengths of lead pipe they were carrying. They were there, he said, to “caution” the poor little bloke who was holding-out against joining the union on “conscientious” grounds.

And then there was the hard-bitten union secretary, who responded to one of his members’ demand for a secret strike-ballot with the immortal words : “Ya wanna secret ballot? - Shut yer bloody eyes!”"

In other words out and out thuggery and intimidation. Working class? More like the union mafia. However, Trotter doesn't really speak of how vile it was.

He approvingly talks of it in the comments, saying compulsory unionism was an achievement. Yes - because being forced to join an organisation that you don't want representing you, and doesn't represent your views is an "achievement". Only if you're a fascist.

The vileness of compulsory unionism, how the trade union movement treats people who value their jobs more than they do (the definition of a scab is someone who values the job more than those calling him that), and how willing these savages are to turn to violence.

That's the dark side of the hard left of New Zealand politics. Something Trotter appears to pine for. It's savage, and shows the mentality of those who prefer the fist to the argument to get what they want.

Reason vs the irrational

As the Hadron Collidor was switched on (and yes I know it was funded by taxpayers), few can fail to be amazed at the constant seeking of knowledge by humanity and science, to understand the fundamental nature of the universe.

Meanwhile, sadly the ignorant paid a price, as according to the Times, a teenage girl in India drank pesticide because she was convinced the world would come to an end, after talking to relatives (and reading parts of the local media which were hysterical about it.

What could more starkly show the difference between those who seek to take humanity forward, peacefully, in leaps and bounds, and the superstition bound anti-reality hysterics who spread fear, loathing and doubt.

Though it has always been like that - ancient Greece was the first great attempt to embrace reason, and it took the Enlightenment to throw off the shackles of oppressive Christianity suppressing science and reason - a process that has yet to be completed against all religions and all philosophies of subjectivist irrationality.

North Korea's Aussie mate

On the 60th anniversary of the founding of North Korea - as George Orwell's vision of 1984 in real life, one Australian clearly thinks it was a good idea. From the (north) Korean Central News Agency:

Foreigners Here

Pyongyang, September 8 (KCNA) -- A delegation of the Australia-DPRK Friendship and Cultural Society headed by Raymond Ferguson and a friendship delegation of Donggang City of Liaoning Province, China, headed by Song Shuguan, general manager of the Chaoyuan Fish Breeding Company Ltd., arrived here on Sept. 7 to participate in the celebrations of the 60th birthday of the DPRK.

Who is this prick Raymond Ferguson and why is he a mate of those who enslave children?

Meanwhile, Russia cheers North Korea on - which, given it created the state under Stalin's instructions and orders, and installed Kim Il Sung as his protege, is not surprising, except um didn't the Cold War end 18 years ago?

Kim Jong Il Receives Congratulatory Letter from Russian President

Pyongyang, September 8 (KCNA) -- Chairman of the DPRK National Defence Commission Kim Jong Il received a congratulatory letter from Russian President Dmitri Anatoliyevich Medvedev on Monday on the occasion of the 60th founding anniversary of the DPRK.
The letter said:
Please accept my heartfelt congratulations to you on the occasion of the 60th founding anniversary of the DPRK.
A new sovereign state, which had a geographically and historically close relation with our country, was founded in the land of Korea on September 9, 1948.
For the past several decades since the significant day, we have gained weighty and positive experience in the mutual cooperation and implemented a lot of common plans conducive to the welfare of the peoples of the two countries.
It is my belief that the traditional good-neighborly relations between our two countries will continue to grow stronger in the future, too, and thus make a distinguished contribution to ensuring peace, stability and security in the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Asia.
Your Excellency Kim Jong Il,
I wish you good health and greater success in your responsible state affairs and the friendly DPRK peace and prosperity.
Yours Sincerely.

Ugh. Fortunately New Zealand hasn't been mentioned.

Peter Dunne nothing

So with all the goings on about Winston and Labour's role in it, what is Peter Dunne doing? Remaining a Minister outside Cabinet, and United Future still grants confidence and supply to Labour.

Don't forget, United Future has granted Labour confidence and supply in the past TWO Parliamentary terms. It hasn't even suggested withdrawing confidence and supply so that an election can be called immediately.

Of course on current polling, United Future is at the same level as Libertarianz, which suggests that Peter Dunne will be a one man band after the election...

Unless the people of Ohariu-Belmont realise that a vote for Peter Dunne is a vote for Labour, as it has been the last two elections - and remains so.

It is about time that this former Labour MP, who has hitched his political career to the religious right once, and more recently to support Clarkistan, is consigned to political history. United Future is hardly a party of the religious right, it is hardly a party seeking a change in government. His most notable achievement has been to set up a new bureaucracy - the Families Commission.

He may be a one man band after this election, like Jim Anderton, but surely it is time that New Zealand voters gave up on parties that are focused almost entirely on ex Labour/National MPs. Winston should be a goner, Jim Anderton should retire, but Peter Dunne needs Ohariu-Belmont to say no (and please don't mention Transmission Gully).

UK liberalises planning laws - a bit

According to the Daily Telegraph, the UK is to remove rules that currently mean property owners must seek planning permission to convert lofts or to add extensions of up to two storeys as long as they fall within certain dimensional guidelines.

Good stuff, except new rules are being imposed on laying driveways.

The usually leftwing Liberal Democrats are saying the rules are still too tight. Is it too much to hope for New Zealand to consider liberalising the RMA? Clearly the National Party thinks so.

Anderton's retirement?

Jim Anderton's career as an MP spans 24 years. The first 6 under Labour, with him being very disenchanted with the necessary liberalisation reforms of the 1980s. Reforms which Helen Clark is on the record as having fully supported - in public and in Parliament, if not necessarily behind closed doors.

He then founded the New Labour Party, a rather batty socialist breakaway, and got elected in 1990 as its sole MP, whilst attracting a cabal of misfits and others like Chris Trotter, keen to implement their alternative vision of high taxes, strong state ownership of business and ever increasing spending on welfare, housing, education and health, whilst screwing consumers over and suppressing new enterprise by protecting encumbent industries.

Following the 1990 election, he managed to convince the lunatic fringe Green Party (which did well under first past the post as a nicely branded protest), the insane Democrats (now Democrats for Social Credit so you know their into "funny money"), the Maori nationalist Mana Motuhake Party and the breakaway anything but Liberal Party to band together under the Alliance label. A new future for the New Zealand hard left was born.

The story of how the left used the two electoral referenda in 1992 and 1993 to change the electoral system to meet its agenda has been told elsewhere. The Alliance led this charge, with next to no media scrutiny of the obvious question "so isn't the Alliance supporting MMP because it believes it is the only way it can gain substantive political power?". It succeeded in 1993, with MMP being passed and winning a second seat - Auckland Central - with Maori nationalist socialist Sandra Lee. 18.2% of the vote in 1993 heralded the Alliance as the third party in NZ politics. Jim Anderton looked like potential kingmaker in a future MMP election.

However it wasn't to be. Winston Peters rose in the meantime, taking the whinging moaning xenophobic retard vote in droves. Jim Anderton made a peace offering with Labour shortly before the 1996 election, that promised Helen Clark that the Alliance would support a Labour led government if the numbers allowed after the election. However, the Alliance lost 40% of its support in 1996, despite MMP offering its supporters a real chance at substantial Parliamentary representation. NZ First became the 3rd party in Parliament with just over 13% compared to the 10% of the Alliance. NZ First became the kingmaker, as National needed it to govern, and even Labour and the Alliance together had insufficient seats to govern without NZ First. In the end Winston chose National, and Jim Anderton spent another 3 years in Opposition - but this time with 13 MPs.

Anderton gained the likes of Jeanette Fitzsimons, Matt Robson, Pam Corkery and Liz Gordon, adding to his own sagacious brilliance, and the leftwing machine steamed onwards to 1999. Here at last was his chance - National in disarray, Labour ahead in the polls. However, the Greens decided to go their own way, and in the 1999 election it proved the right thing for them. The Greens picked up just over 5% of the vote, the Alliance had dropped to about 7.7%, showing it had bled support to Greens (but also held its own, probably as NZ First voters deserted the party as it had been in government). Labour governed with a formal coalition with the Alliance, but needing the Greens to get a Parliamentary majority on confidence and supply. Jim Anderton would be Deputy Prime Minister.

Anderton got given a few policies to keep him happy. One was Kiwibank, essentially an exercise in subsidising (injecting capital) and convincing the NZ Post board to enter into the banking sector, one that hasn't been unprofitable, but has certainly made less than credible returns on capital. Another was to convert the largely policy oriented Ministry of Commerce into a pro-active Ministry of Economic Development. MED would be more pro-active about government support for business, and would guide Trade New Zealand, which would dish out subsidies, picking winners to produce jobs. Jim also got money for his forestry strategy, his own commodity winner picking, pouring money into training and infrastructure for the Northland and East Coast forestry sectors - support that was never reciprocated at the ballot box.

Jim was happy, he looked like he had made a difference, he was a Cabinet Minister, and became increasingly comfortable with the direction of the Clark administration. However this disenchanted the hard left of the Alliance, like Laila Harre. Increasingly Anderton seemed to make the Alliance an adjunct of the Labour Party, but some in the Alliance wanted greater differentiation and more efforts to swing economic and social policy to the left - something Anderton was loathe to do, partly due to his own conservatism, but also as the Alliance had less than 8% of the vote compared to Labour's near 39%, he wished to avoid wagging the dog so to speak.

So the Alliance and Jim Anderton parted their ways, with the Progressive Party (later Jim Anderton's Progressive Coalition, since nobody knew what the Progressive Party was) contesting the 2002 election distinct from the Alliance. Anderton had his own solid constituency granting him enough support to remain in Parliament, but the party vote for the Progressives was low at 1.7% of the vote, just enough to win a second seat in Parliament. Meanwhile, the Alliance won no constituencies and only under 1.3% of the vote. Anderton could not remain as Deputy Prime Minister, leading a party with such a low percentage of the vote, but his small party could become more closely integrated with Labour.

Several family tragedies saw Anderton show special interest in drugs policy and so the Progressive Party became a vehicle for a rather conservative leftwing approach to some issues, like drugs, but generally there was little to distinguish it from the Labour party. This was seen in the 2005 election when the party dropped to only 1.2% of the party vote, putting Anderton in Parliament alone.

Anderton has been a Cabinet Minister now since 1999, he is now 70 years old and has dedicated a good part of his life to politics. As Labour looks like facing almost certain defeat in the upcoming election, Jim Anderton may consider the past 9 years to have been a success. He has seen the implementation of a couple of hallmark policies of his, and more importantly perhaps he was an importance influence on the campaign for electoral reform. His support for MMP and the credibility he brought to the socialist melting pot of lunatics called the Alliance was critical for both - and to his credit, jettisoning the Alliance in 2002 was the right thing to do, letting the old Marxist unionist rump fade away to obscurity.

I've obviously never liked Anderton's politics. I thought Michael Cullen's mid 1990s jibe of "Jim Ol' Son" quite apt. However, Anderton has moderated himself in recent years. I've seen him in meetings with Ministers, and he works hard, asks pertinent questions and is indistinguishable from Labour Party Ministers, except that he works harder than many of them. In short, he could be back in the Labour Party today quite happily. He is a better Minister than many would have thought.

He must know his party is finished without him, that's a simple fact - but not because it's a personality cult like NZ First, but because it really doesn't have a niche that is clearly identifiable.

So at 70 it would be apt for Jim Anderton to announce his retirement - he can look back on his career and can see his role in winding back the reforms he hated - increasing bureaucracy and increasing state involvement in business. He can be proud from his political perspective about what he has achieved, but does he really need three years in Opposition as a single MP party?

Oil below US$100 a barrel

So reports the Times.

Environmentalists will be bemoaning this and repeating their comments that it is still the age of "peak oil". Of course what has happened is demand has eased up, supply has changed little, so the price has dropped.

It's called the market.

So while the market respond, as the economics of oil exploration remain high, and demand eases off - you might ask yourself:

1. Why so many still don't understand how markets work?
2. Why environmentalists get so excited with the prospect of oil "running out" or becoming unaffordable? Why are they more excited about that, than by their being substitute fuels found?

Have Clark or Key expressed a view?

On the US Presidential elections?

It appears Gordon Brown has implicitly endorsed Barack Obama, according to the Daily Telegraph.

He has been quoted saying that the Democrats are "generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times". Doesn't bode the greatest if McCain wins now does it?

Remember Ralph Nader?

Once the left's pinup at every US Presidential election.

Aussie blogger Tim Blair reports on how bad it is going for him. The left seems more than happy to embrace the messiah Barack Obama.

Shame really. The Democrats once blamed Nader for why Al Gore lost in 2000. He wont be a reason for them to get angry this year if Obama can't do it for them. Nader is a serious nutcase, but at least he is principled - what I would like to know is by how much does Obama REALLY disagree with him?

Jeremy Paxman - world class interviewer

He is the one reason to watch Newsnight on BBC2 when he is the presenter.

Can I only wish that TVNZ or TV3 could have someone who could interview politicians like he can:

Try this (BBC not allowing embedding of this) of Michael Howard. Go for 2.40 onwards. The evasion is blatant, and Paxman does not relent.

Or Paxman confronting Sinn Fein MP Martin McGuinness over his denial of involvement in the IRA


Resisting the dumbing down of news here:





Confronting the vile fan of brutal dictators George Galloway:



A collection of him not getting straight answers from politicians and persisting:



And finally a portion from "Have I Got News for you" showing Paxman presenting the weather grudgingly and brilliantly:



Imagine anyone on NZ TV today who would dare be half this adventurous and confrontational.

National to axe Families Commission?

Yes yes, I'm in raptures, one bureaucracy to go. Yes one, at least something to grapple onto that is a positive change of National compared to Labour. Lindsay Mitchell was getting excited too, until...

Key decided to rebalance it.

Peter Dunne, who should hopefully be back to being the sole MP for his party once more after the election (after all voting United Future has twice meant supporting Labour in power), said it only cost $9 million (of other people's money) over four years. He says its work would "still need to be done by other agencies" if it was abolished.

Bullshit.

Peter, YOU damned well pay for it.

Again National disappoints. Is it just Labour's so bad we are all to put up with more Labour policy tweaking than any real steps forward? Why can't the newest most asinine bureaucracies be wound up?

Why is my tag "National party disappoints", growing weekly?

Honour among thieves?

Thieves being Labour and NZ First politicians of course (not that they have a monopoly on this).

Owen Glenn's evidence is damning.

How utterly determined are these suckers from people's bank accounts to remain in power? How little self esteem do they have when they don't have power? What better reason is there to throw them in the dustbin of history?

Why do the good people of Mt Albert think that woman is worthy of representing them?

NZ First and Labour have acted inappropriately, in ways that would have outraged either party had National done the same.

Not PC has it part right. Clark will need to call an election anyway. However, serious questions need to be answered. Winston's credibility now resides only in his geriatric personality cult, and this should ensure his political oblivion. Mike Williams must go to save what's left of the Labour Party's honour, he is the sacrificial lamb Clark must demand. She must apologise, call the election and answer the questions as to why the Labour Party has retained power through sheer hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, maybe Nicky Hagar will write a book about it? Oh no, wouldn't be convenient now would it?

Environmentalists impoverishing Africa

Mark Henderson in The Times writes about how Africa is being kept poor by environmental activists from wealthy countries promoting traditional agriculture rather than the latest technology in agriculture. Sir David King, the former scientific advisor to the UK government, says of Africa:

Why has that continent not joined Asia in the big green revolutions that have taken place over the past few decades? The suffering within that continent, I believe, is largely driven by attitudes developed in the West which are somewhat anti-science, anti-technology - attitudes that lead towards organic farming, for example, attitudes that lead against the use of genetic technology for crops that could deal with increased salinity in the water, that can deal with flooding for rice crops, that can deal with drought resistance.

Of course anti-reason is the hallmark of the Greens - a philosophy of hysteria scaremongering, that is a quasi-religious worshipping of the "natural and traditional" against the scientific and technologically advanced.

He calls organic food "a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food", not to say it is wrong for people to choose it, but that it has driven messages to those communities without surplus food, who simply can't afford to ignore the latest that agricultural science has to offer.

He talks of how hundreds of individual farmers taking produce to market is an inefficient activity from the past, because after all most food in developed countries is not sold by those producing it, because if they spent their effort doing that they would sell a fraction of what they do otherwise.

It's time to engage in the philosophical debate at question here. Should public policy be driven by well intentioned zealots who don't let evidence, science and results get in the way of their ideology, or should it be based on rational analysis of options? Should we continue to listen to the GE scaremongerers, the organic food advocates and those who spread scepticism about science, when they offer no solid evidence for their faith like beliefs?

When Professor King cites the example that "Friends of the Earth in 1999 worried that drought-tolerant crops may have the potential to grow in habitats unavailable' to conventional crops" then you know Friends of the Earth have become enemies of humanity.

It's about time the benign contradiction infested, irrational, quasi religious and pro-state violence philosophy of the Greens was challenged openly - it disgustingly taints the policies of most other political parties, and the mainstream media has neglected to confront what it is really about.

ACT voted with Labour?

Well so says Brian Rudman. Apparently ACT voted for the Public Transport Management Bill, which Rudman thoroughly approves - instantly sending alarm bells off in my head. ACT with Labour and the Greens?

What IS that Bill about? Well it is quite simple. The Auckland Regional Council has long been upset that so many of Auckland's bus services were commercially provided by the private sector. In others words, people paid fares, companies ran buses and they were all happy - except the ARC of course, which has long wanted to regulate fares, frequencies and plan Auckland public transport endlessly (and shut down commercial bus services competing with its own highly loss making rail services).

The ARC has long missed owning and operating Auckland's buses, ignoring that it did such an abysmal job at it. When the ARC and its ARA predecessor ran most of the buses in Auckland, patronage had its longest continuous decline in patronage from the late 1960s through to the late 1990s. At the same time, the bus fleet progressively aged, services were planned endlessly and Aucklanders continued to drive, and subsidies increased. After forced privatisation (which by the way helped create the assets of what is now Auckland Regional Holdings (formerly Infrastructure Auckland)), Stagecoach Auckland invested heavily in new buses and commercial services thrived, and patronage grew.

However it wasn't trains.

You see the bus companies would sometimes drop routes and frequencies of services operating commercially, upsetting the ARC which believed it needed to subsidise services to plug such gaps. This happened more frequently after millions of dollars were poured into rail services, as subsidised trains undermined unsubsidised bus services.

The ARC is not forced to subsidise any bus services. When it chooses to do so it is required to competitively tender them, so like any business seeking a contractor, it faces choices. It can also set terms and conditions for those tendering. Rudman's claim that "As the law stands, despite these huge subsidies, ARTA cannot inspect operators' books to check whether they are gouging the system" is only true if you think ARTA's contracting processes are robust and it seeks the best value for money.

ARTA could deny increases in subsidies, but it wants to deny increases in fares and to increase services beyond those commercially sustainable. Reality is that fuel prices put up the price of providing services, subsidising rail services undermines the fare revenue of certain bus services, so subsidies rise if fares don't rise.

This bill aims to dodge reality. It means that commercially provided services can now be more heavily regulated - services that get no subsidies may be forced to integrate with a ticketing system specified by ARTA, and which may not deliver any benefits to the companies, because it wont attract enough passengers to pay for the cost of the system. It means that regional councils can contract over commercial services, so that instead of a mix of subsidised and unsubsidised services by different companies, you get subsidised services by a single one.

Rodney Hide has made a mistake. He has voted for local government control over private enterprise and central planning of public transport over entrepreneurship, and incentives to minimise subsidies. National voted against it, it would be nice if it promised to repeal this legislation which would only increase what ratepayers pay to subsidise public transport.

Don't like Auckland's trains? Pay more!

Well it's hardly surprising. You get what you pay for.

You see the fares only recover around a third of the operating costs, and not a dollar of fare revenue has been used to pay for the trains themselves, the track upgrades or the station upgrades. They have been paid for by ratepayers, motorists (through petrol tax) and the proceeds of the privatisation of the Yellow Bus Company.

So when Peter Lyons in the NZ Herald moans about services being late, moans about standing room only, moans about the services being inferior to his expectations he shouldn't be surprised. Taxpayers have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the system. He starves the system by paying fares that are a fraction of the operating costs, it's a con that deludes Aucklanders into thinking that you can have a first class urban passenger railway without either paying fares to sustain it (as in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan) or paying a fortune in rates or taxes (as in Paris, Vienna, Montreal).

So the debate is really this. Are those who want Auckland to have a passenger railway willing to use it and pay the fares necessary to sustain it? If not, why should Aucklanders who don't want to use it be forced to pay taxes for those who do?

Meanwhile, if you think it is the solution to congestion in Auckland, consider that 88% of commuters in Auckland do NOT work in downtown Auckland, where the railway goes. Consider that the railway itself only serves three out of the five main corridors in Auckland radiating from the central city, then you can see that at best 7% of Auckland commuters might use it.

It would be nice if a journalist would put in a LGOIMA (official information) request to the ARC to ask the difference its rail plan would make to traffic speeds in Auckland if fully implemented (according to peer reviewed consultants' reports).